Katie Lam
MP for Weald of Kent · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I spent a day last week with the palliative care team at William Harvey hospital in Ashford, which serves a large chunk of my constituency, and I was amazed by how much time they spent gathering and sharing information.”
“Tomorrow, the Conservatives were going to ask for Parliament to sit for one more working day, so that the new Prime Minister could come here and set out his agenda for the country, which we could then scrutinise on behalf of all the people we represent.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to echo your tribute to a predecessor of mine, Ann Widdecombe. She was an exceptionally effective Member of Parliament, has been a really tough act to follow, and is very fondly remembered in the Weald.”
“Shabir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape.”
“How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again? When the law produces an outcome that is clearly so wrong, the law must be changed. The Government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed.”
“Twiggy Roberts, who is a veteran himself and runs HX Motors in my constituency, training other veterans to maintain and customise Land Rovers, says that he hears a lot from veterans of his generation about their frustrations as they try to gain access to the mental health services that they need and deserve, especially when dealing with p…”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Katie Lam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“When state organisations fail us, we must correct those past failures. We can either do that by changing legislation, as we are supporting the Government to do today, or by understanding better what has gone wrong and making sure that it does not happen again. We urge the Government to do those things.”
“The Government have also said that they consulted affected forces and agencies, and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, while working with the DBS on the changes. We would welcome hearing about anything else that the Government might have learned in that process about data sharing in law enforcement, and ways to improve it. While we reflect on the safeguarding of vulnerable people and ways in which the authorities can allow things to fall through the cracks, it seems remiss not to acknowledge the deep and abject failings of the British state to protect its children from sexual exploitation, including by organised grooming gangs. I must therefore take the opportunity to urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s position and commence a national inquiry into those horrific crimes.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for their remarks on a topic about which there should be little disagreement. We must give the police the power to access the information that they need to safeguard the vulnerable. There is no reason why non-territorial and specialist police forces, as well as those in the Crown dependencies, should not also be able to do that. Removing the legal ambiguity described by the Minister is therefore something that we support without reservation. It will be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether they believe there are any outstanding issues requiring remedial action. The Government will have our full support in doing that, too.”
“As we have heard, according to the Centre for Policy Studies, over 800,000 migrants from the past five years could soon claim indefinite leave to remain. In NHS care, benefits, social housing and more, that will cost £234 billion—nearly six years of defence spending, or almost all income tax receipts for a year. Will the Minister commit to extending the qualifying period for ILR, or will she accept that the consequence of her policy is a liability for the public of hundreds of billions of pounds?”
“In fighting terrorism, the Security Minister has rightly said that Islamism is the foremost threat we face. Its danger lies not just in physical violence, but in the intolerance it embodies and the intimidation it relies on. Will the Home Secretary give a clear answer to this question? Should it be a criminal offence to desecrate a Koran or any holy text: yes or no?”
“The Lord Chancellor rightly says that less than 10% of criminals account for nearly half of crime. I understand that a sentencing review is under way, but any decisions are for Ministers to make. Will the right hon. Lady please rule out here and now any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?”
“T6. We know that the Attorney General has recused himself from advising the Government, but he will not tell us what for, and he still refuses to be transparent about potential payments by former clients. Does the Secretary of State for Justice really not believe that the public have a right to know?”
“Numbers in the most recent year fell by two thirds. The rules around the health and social care visa need to be tightened further, not loosened through a certificate of common sponsorship, and actually enforced. That is for the good of not only those healthcare workers themselves, but—as should be the primary concern of hon. Members here—for the good of their patients and of this country. Can the Minister please confirm that that reform is not under consideration? Can she please set out the discussions she is having with her Treasury and Health Department counterparts about the problem of underpaid jobs in health and social care? Can she please tell us how many migrants on care worker visas the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible?”
“That is a result of the poor pay and conditions across the sector, which have been allowed to endure through bringing in workers from abroad who are willing to accept them as the price of coming here. A certificate of common sponsorship will simply not solve this fundamental problem. The next related issue with the visa is the degree to which it is abused. The MAC describes “misuse” of the visa as “a significant problem and greater than in other immigration routes”. All these issues raise massive concerns about the safety of patients and vulnerable people that the system is charged with caring for. It is awful that that system built up under a Conservative Government. The change of rules to limit dependants is insufficient to fix the whole problem, but was a substantial step in the right direction.”
“After five years, a person who has come here on a health and social care visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they will qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care, everything. All that costs money, far more money than those on these sorts of salaries will ever pay in tax and or than they will save the state with their artificially low wages. This cannot go on. As the hon. Members for Poole, for Congleton (Mrs Russell), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have noted, those individuals are at risk of exploitation.”
“Migration has been far too high for decades, and remains so. That is relevant today, because the volumes of people on the health and social care visa are eye-watering. Since 2021, more people have come to this country under the health and social care route than live in the city of Manchester. Why is that? Because those jobs are tough, yes—but fundamentally because those jobs are underpaid. The Migration Advisory Committee says, “the underlying cause of these workforce difficulties is due to the underfunding of the social care sector…immigration could not solve these workforce issues alone.” This situation is economically self-defeating. There is no question that money the Government save in the short term by underpaying salaries in health and social care is dwarfed in the medium and long term by the costs to the state.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for securing this important debate. We are all deeply grateful to our doctors, nurses and care workers. They do rewarding jobs, but their roles can be difficult and gruelling, too. It is true that many people in that workforce are not British but have come to this country to do that work. We must thank them for helping to keep us and our families healthy and cared for. However, it is our role in Westminster to look at the whole picture, informed—but not led—by individual cases, and there is a wider question to address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration and successive Governments did not deliver.”
“The independent review of Prevent, the Government programme that tries to stop people being radicalised by extremist views, said on its very first page that “the facts clearly demonstrate that the most lethal threat in the last 20 years has come from Islamism, and this threat continues.” The last Government knew this to be true. Do this Government?”
“People can see it in their wages, which are stagnating because they are being undercut, and they can see it in their rent soaring, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the cohesion of their communities and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and infrastructure.”
“It should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost more than they contribute; what they pay in tax should at least cover the costs of the public services that they use. The policy that we are debating was implemented by a Conservative Government as part of an attempt to cut migration and to ensure that those who come here do not represent a net fiscal cost. Clearly, it was not enough, but it was a step in the right direction. In delaying reform, the new Government seem to be making the same mistakes as previous Governments. To refer again to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex, we in Westminster “cannot pretend that immigration comes only with benefits and no costs”. This is all too clear to the country.”
“The role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family, so we must place this discussion in its national context: managing overall migration to Britain. The public have consistently asked successive Governments to lower migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like Governments before them, promised to do exactly that, but, again like the Governments before them, did not deliver. Migration has been far too high for the last two decades and remains so. The issue of migration is not just about quantity.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), the Petitions Committee and the 101,321 members of the public who have requested that we debate this topic. Those 100,000 people have asked us to discuss this policy because, as many hon. Members have movingly pointed out, it can be overwhelmingly important to those it affects. There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those you love. To be separated from your husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to it can feel like everything.”
“It is the job of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, whoever is in government. As I have acknowledged, these are mistakes that we made, so very few people are as well qualified to suggest what behaviour could be avoided in the future. That is part of our job and our duty to the public.”
“That implies that there are no costs to that migration, but that is wrong. After five years, a person who has come here on a family visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it—95% of ILR applicants are successful—they qualify for welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else, and that costs money. The salary threshold exists because people who move to this country—even those who are spouses of citizens—must be able to sustain themselves financially within their family, or the whole system will fall to pieces, even more than it already has.”
“The question is not, “Should British citizens be able to bring their foreign spouses to the UK?” It is, “Does it benefit the country as a whole for British citizens on lower salaries to bring foreign spouses here who are unable to get a visa any other way?” By definition, those spouses fall outside the already excessively broad conditions that we have set for being able to come to this country in their own right. I hope it is some comfort to the constituent of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) to hear that there is no minimum income requirement if a spouse is disabled or on personal independence payment. The hon. Members for Stroud, for Sheffield Central and for North Ayrshire and Arran reminded us that those coming here have no immediate right to welfare support.”
“In the past four years, more people have moved to the UK under a spousal visa than live in Exeter, Ipswich or Blackpool, and that number is rising sharply. There is some indication that, as the previous Government tightened the rules around dependants and salary thresholds for work visas, people turned to the family route instead. Numbers in the second quarter of 2024 were up a third on the same time in 2023 and were four times as high as in the second quarter of 2022. It is worth remembering that any and every Briton can marry any foreign citizen who can get a visa here. This country has issued some 5 million visas in the past five years, so the system is hardly stringent.”
“It is far from a slur. I will come on to more statistical analysis of fiscal costs in a moment, but if a migrant to this country represents a fiscal cost, that is a fact, not an insult. This Labour Government, as we know, have also committed to lowering migration. We do not know by how much or when, so I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that. The hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Opher) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) pointed out that spousal and partner visas accounted for only 5% of visas issued last year, but 58,000 people is still a huge number, and it is only our—to quote the Prime Minister—“sky-high” level of overall migration that makes it seem small. In fact, it is almost as much as the entire cumulative net migration to Britain for the 25 years leading up to 1997.”
“That is why the Migration Advisory Committee’s initial impact assessment of the policy found £500 million in welfare cost savings and £500 million more in public service savings from the introduction of the £18,000 minimum income requirement, and that was when far fewer people were using that route to come here. But the cost-benefit analysis that counts is not that of the Migration Advisory Committee, but that of the British people. They want mass migration to end, and they are sick of broken promises. The numbers must come down across the whole system. The last Government were therefore right to introduce this reform, and it does not bode well that this Prime Minister, for all his talk, decided at the first opportunity to back out of it.”
“As I just explained, if the person has been here for five years and applies for indefinite leave to remain, and it is granted—as almost all indefinite leave to remain applications are—they are entitled to full welfare, social housing, NHS care and everything else the state provides to its citizens. That point about indefinite leave to remain is especially relevant to family visas. Ten years after arrival, only 7%, or one in 14, of those who come here on student visas, and 21%, or one in five, of those who came on work visas, have ILR. For family visas, it is 83%, or five out of every six people.”
“Finally, I am conscious that those who have been granted indefinite leave to remain are then able to sponsor a spouse. Can the Minister tell us how many migrants on skilled worker visas, care worker visas and shortage occupation lists—I believe that amounts to 2 million visas since the start of 2021—the Home Office expects to apply for ILR when eligible? How many spousal visa applications does the Department then expect to receive from those people? Further, based on demographic, level of income and number of dependants, what do the Government expect that to cost? What discussions are being held between the Home Secretary, the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions on how these pressures will be met?”
“Can she confirm exactly what that means, by how much they will bring down the numbers and when, and that the Government understand that it must happen—indeed, can only happen—where it involves making hard and upsetting choices for the good of our country? With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to maintain this policy? If they will not make that commitment today, can they at least commit to the fundamental principle behind it—that those who come here, or bring others here, should be able to support themselves financially and not represent a net cost to the state over the long term? Does the Minister therefore agree that the salary threshold should increase to whatever level is necessary to ensure that that is the case?”
“As I have said, the policy was nothing like enough to reduce immigration. It was a step in the right direction, but it was deeply insufficient. Migration has the effect of increasing GDP in raw terms because more people are here but, on GDP per capita, most evidence indicates that it weakens our economy over the medium term. On this reform and the many others required to our migration system, the Government must make difficult decisions. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses, or the cost of the public service workforce. But that is the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain fully committed to bringing down migration?”
“Housing asylum seekers in hotels—of which there were 6,000 more cases in just the first three months of this Government—is spectacularly expensive. The Home Secretary’s policy is to make asylum decisions quickly, so that any costs of the migrants she accepts can be hidden in the welfare system. The Home Office admits in its impact assessments that it has no idea how much her policy will cost in benefits claims and council housing bills. Will the Minister commit today to recording and publishing all those costs for migrants whose asylum claims she accepts?”
“The investment was welcomed for supporting job creation in south Wales and the wider UK supply chain. The Crown Estate later set out its plans for a new generation of floating wind farms in the Celtic sea, with the potential to power a further 4 million homes. Will the Minister please assure us that this exciting project, and the investment secured under the last Government, will not get lost in the cost and bureaucracy of setting up GB Energy? Will he outline the impact on energy bills of the higher strike price put into auction round 5 by this Government and recommit to the Government’s manifesto promise to lower energy bills by £300? This Government inherited global leadership in offshore wind, which is something I am sure we can all be proud of. The Celtic sea presents a fantastic opportunity to build on that record.”
“This debate is, of course, about the Celtic sea, but I am conscious that in the North sea, the Chinese company Ming Yang Wind Power Group is poised to construct hundreds of floating wind turbines, if that is approved by the SNP. Ming Yang benefits from massive state subsidies in China. Will the Minister please assure us that, be it in the North sea, the Celtic sea or anywhere else, he will not allow any wind turbines to be built and controlled by hostile states, undermining both market fairness and our national security, in any of Britain’s waters? The previous Government set up the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme, investing £160 million in two ports. One of these was Port Talbot, which is well placed to serve Celtic sea floating offshore wind.”
“Successive Conservative Governments took renewable electricity generation from just 7% in 2010 to over half by the second quarter of this year. We made the UK the global leader in offshore wind, with more capacity installed than any other country, powering more than 7.5 million homes. The last Conservative Government committed a £1 billion investment to green industries through the green industries growth accelerator, aimed at advancing technologies such as offshore wind. The investment aimed to leverage up to £90 billion over a decade. Will the Minister please update us on how much of that has been spent since the Labour Government took office, and how much is being directed to floating offshore wind?”
“He is right that workforce development must be strategic, coherent and long term, and I was fascinated to hear of the outstanding university and college courses available, including in his own constituency—a “Cornish Celtic tiger” indeed. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) also discussed skills, and I hope his upcoming meeting with the Skills Minister is as fruitful as he hopes it will be. His constituents, I am sure, will be very pleased to hear of all he is doing to stand up for the infrastructure his area needs, as well as for the exciting supply chain and marine technology leadership that he describes. I was a little surprised to hear the view of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) that the area was neglected by the last Government.”
“Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) outlined the size of the opportunity. Floating offshore wind is a substantial potential prize, not just for the climate but for Britain’s reindustrialisation. I am sure his all-party parliamentary group for the Celtic sea much appreciates his contribution—as is the case, I am sure, for the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth. I look forward to seeing those anchors from Pembrokeshire and they are lucky to have him to champion them. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) is another committed advocate for the great county of Cornwall and the fantastic economic potential of south-west England and, of course, south Wales.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham). This is an important subject, successfully championed by the last Conservative Government, and I am glad of the chance to discuss it today. The hon. Lady’s passion and ambition for her seat, and for all of Cornwall, are clear and do her great credit. These are complex issues involving major projects, long supply chains, and many public and private sector groups, which she has clearly taken a lot of time to understand. I am sure the Minister will be grateful for her suggestions. Her points, especially on the need for co-ordination between public and private investment, and bringing in planning and skills, are well made. The hon.”
“That completely misunderstands agriculture and the countryside. A farm is not an asset on a balance sheet. Our farmers are stewards of their land, holding it for the next generation and the generation after that. It is not the fault of farmers—especially those in places such as my constituency in Kent, with its astronomical house prices—that their land is so valuable in a way that does not at all reflect their farm’s profitability.”
“The Government have made many claims about this policy that are not credible, but I wish to address only four. First, they outrageously claimed that they would not do it. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), said last year: “We have no intention of changing APR.” He said that given the situation that farmers are in, a Government cannot possibly go to people and demand more taxes. I am sorry he is not here today to hear his own words. Secondly, the Government claim the change is unavoidable as they desperately need the £500 million they claim that it will raise. The £500 million that they give to farms overseas and the £9 billion that they were all too happy to hand over to public sector unions says otherwise. Thirdly, the Government claim that these people are rich.”
“They do not have pensions; they do not have plans that would allow them to spend the last decade of their lives—of course, it may be much more—no longer farming the land that they have farmed for the whole of their lives up until this point. Finally, to raise a point that seems to have been almost entirely ignored, doing this will incur eye-watering capital gains tax bills. For some of my farmers, it will mean hundreds of years’ worth of land revaluation that they similarly cannot afford to pay.”
“My constituent Ross grows hops in Tenterden. As he watched the Budget, his father, who is in his 70s, was suffering from sepsis and fighting for his life in hospital. Especially in farming, our most dangerous industry, people cannot guarantee that they will live another seven years after having handed over the farm. Another of my constituents is in remission, having recently recovered from cancer. If the cancer returns, it is likely to be terminal. This constituent is in their early 50s. Are the Government seriously suggesting that my constituent should hand over, not just the farm, but the home that they live in to their teenage children? Many of my farmers live in their farmhouses and are planning to work the rest of their days.”
“I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. My farmers tell me that these inheritance tax bills will take decades of profit to pay off, so they will keep doing the job that they were doing yesterday, but with a fraction of the cash that they had before—which was not a lot to begin with. Finally, I want to address the idea that farmers can simply give farms away and live another seven years. It is incredible that the Government should introduce a tax in one breath and encourage people to avoid it in the next, and it makes a mockery of the whole policy. If it is true, then the tax will not raise any money for the Government, but instead increase bureaucracy and advisory fees for farmers. Mostly, though, for many people, it is not an option or it will not work. People have not been given enough time to plan for these changes.”
“What I have been told by my farmers, based on the tax advice that they have been given, is that the bills—and not just the inheritance tax on decades of profits—will be completely unaffordable. Farming is hard. It is not like any other industry: it is a culture and a way of life. It is lonely, revenues are uncertain, profits are tiny and cash is tight.”
“I will not, as I am coming to the end of my speech. It is absurd and shameful that this Government, looking to fund their union pay rises and vanity energy projects, are putting this pressure on those who do the back-breaking work of growing our food. Farmers already have appalling problems with mental health and suicide: the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution tells us that a third of farmers may be depressed and half may be suffering from anxiety. One of my farmers says that his father is now kept up at night by the thought that he will leave his children a crippling debt that will make their lives financially impossible. Another told me that his father says that he just hopes that he dies before the changes come in. This policy is illogical, inconsistent, dishonest and wrong.”
“3. What steps the Church is taking to mitigate the impact of the potential withdrawal of the listed places of worship grant scheme in March 2025.”
“In rural areas like the Weald of Kent, our churches are vital public buildings, providing somewhere not just for the spiritual life of our villages and towns, but for their civic life. Given the impending withdrawal of the listed places of worship grant scheme, what is being done to support churches like St Mildred’s in Tenterden? It plays a vital role in the town, especially now that the town hall is closed for refurbishment, and it relies on the scheme to make essential repairs. The hon. Lady has spoken about the importance of the scheme, but will it be extended?”
“More than 13,000 non-crime hate incidents have been logged by UK police forces in the past year, including against schoolchildren as young as nine for classroom insults. This is estimated to have taken 60,000 hours of police time and undermines public trust and confidence in policing. The last Government tightened the guidance, and it has been widely reported this morning that the Home Secretary will update it again. How will the right hon. Lady know if her changes have worked? What is the metric, and is there a target? If the changes do not work, will she restrict investigations to take place only when there is an imminent risk of an actual crime?”
“T3. I was so pleased to go to His Majesty’s Lord Lieutenant of Kent’s cadet awards recently to hear about the fantastic work of our local cadet forces. What might the Secretary of State have to say to the brilliant young people I saw there to justify the recent decision to cut funding for state school cadets?”
“It is worth saying that many of those we spoke to who responded to the standard tier consultation quite negatively are people who freely volunteer their time and their talents to provide a facility for their community—which they do, safely, 365 days of the year, for no pay. These are volunteers within their community. On speaking to many of them, they felt it was too heavy a stick to make this a legal obligation and that, in fact, rather more carrot would have been helpful in assisting them to do what they wanted to do anyway to keep their communities safe, rather than putting them at the risk of the law instead. That is one of the main reasons why the Home Office received such a negative response from that size and type of charities and buildings when doing the supplementary standard tier consultation.”
“Some of the provisions in the Bill for placing the responsibility on individuals who manage the building do not fit well with the constitutional structure of most village halls, although a small number are now becoming companies limited by guarantee and so on. Once we put in place the briefing, the support, the information and training, there is absolutely no guarantee that the people who have received that will be in the building if something happens. For those reasons, if no other, we have to think quite differently about how this legislation is going to be enacted in voluntarily run organisations.”
“That would be helpful. Jeremy Leggett: Almost all the village halls of that size in England, Scotland and Wales are run as unincorporated associations. The charity itself is not a legal entity. The responsibilities for managing the charity are held personally and severally by the trustees, of which there might be between six and 10. So all the obligations under the Bill would fall to that group of people. Although the trustees of village halls voluntarily manage the halls for the benefit of their community, they are very seldom on site when it is being hired out. Therefore, the distinction between the people responsible for the building and the people responsible for the events is very clear.”
“Venues themselves will have to consider the greatest number of people reasonably expected to be present at the same time. It is about that word, “expected”. If they know that there will be more than 200 people expected at their venue at one time, they will be caught within that. Where “from time to time” comes from is if there is an unexpected event, which unexpectedly has 200 people, which could not have been considered beforehand. There will not be any sort of automatic “You will now be in enhanced tier”—sorry, the standard tier—or you will not jump to the enhanced tier from time to time. So it is about the expected. If you expect more than 200 people, then you will be in scope of the legislation.”
“Q Can I ask a bit more about “from time to time” and what we consider that to mean? I am thinking specifically about the fact that I have a few large churches in my constituency that might have one or two events a year when they might have 200 people present. Are they included or excluded? Debbie Bartlett: To clarify how we are treating places of worship within the legislation, they are being treated slightly differently. Regardless of their capacity, if they are over the 200 limit, regardless of whether they are over 800 or not, they will all be considered within the standard tier. That is to reflect the unique role that faith communities play in society. In terms of “from time to time”, how we are calculating capacity within the legislation goes back again to the point about making it slightly more proportionate and more venue-specific.”